Gifted

Child Today
http://gct.sagepub.com/

Performance-Based Assessment: The Road to Authentic Learning for the Gifted

Joyce VanTassel-Baska
Gifted Child Today 2014 37: 41
DOI: 10.1177/1076217513509618
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://gct.sagepub.com/content/37/1/41

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Gifted Child Today can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://gct.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://gct.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://gct.sagepub.com/content/37/1/41.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Dec 16, 2013

What is This?

Downloaded from gct.sagepub.com by Allan de Guzman on July 14, 2014

509618

research-article2013

GCTXXX10.1177/1076217513509618GIFTED CHILD TODAYGIFTED CHILD TODAY

GIFTED CHILD TODAY

vol. 37 no. 1

FEATURES

Performance-Based Assessment
The Road to Authentic Learning for the Gifted
Joyce VanTassel-Baska, EdD1

Abstract: Performance-based assessment clearly represents Common Core State Standards (CCSS) use performance-based
assessments as a main format for items as a way to judge the
an indispensable approach for assessing gifted student
acquisition of higher level skills like developing argument. Thus,
learning. Challenging performance tasks allow gifted
the incorporation of performance-based assessment in core
learners to reveal their considerable intellectual capacity
content areas would appear a necessary part of designing
and energy. Through performance tasks, teachers gain
effective programs for gifted learners and assessing them
insights into a gifted students true level of capability in
appropriately.
a domain of knowledge. As the majority of programs for
the gifted employ a project-based approach to curriculum,
there is a real need to use a matching assessment model.
Rationale for the Use of Performance
Performance-based assessment, which includes product
Tasks to Assess the Learning Levels of
assessment, provides just such a match. Moreover, the new
Gifted Students
assessments for the Common Core
The criteria for the creation of good
State Standards use performanceperformance assessment items parallel
based assessments as a main format
hrough
several criteria for the development of
for items as a way to judge the
sound curriculum for gifted learners.
acquisition of higher level skills like
performance
Such criteria call for being open-ended,
developing argument. Thus, the
focusing on higher level thinking and
incorporation of performance-based
tasks teachers gain
problem solving, and stressing
assessment in core content areas
insights into a gifted
articulation of the thinking processes
would appear a necessary part of
employed (i.e., metacognition). These
designing effective programs for
student s true level
features then, incorporated into an
gifted learners and assessing them
assessment protocol, should provide
appropriately.
of capability in a
evidence of the level of performance in
Keywords: assessment, problem
gifted program classrooms as these
domain of
solving, gifted education
same features are cornerstones of most
knowledge
curriculum development efforts,
regardless of type of program
erformance-based assessment
approach. Thus, a high score on
clearly represents an
performance assessment items should
indispensable approach for
assessing gifted student learning. Challenging performance tasks represent well high-level classroom performance in a gifted
program focused in a given domain of learning.
allow gifted learners to reveal their considerable intellectual
Performance-based assessment provides an alternative way
capacity and energy. Through performance tasks, teachers gain
of looking at student ability via contextual performance. The
insights into a gifted students true level of capability in a
item prototypes developed not only represent the scope of the
domain of knowledge. As the majority of programs for the
gifted employ a project-based approach to curriculum, there is a domain under study, they also represent the major higher level
modes of thinking in that domain, a primary issue of interest to
real need to use a matching assessment model. Performancebased assessment, which includes product assessment, provides gifted educators. Thus, in the new CCSS English language arts
assessment prototypes, students are required to demonstrate
just such a match. Moreover, the new assessments for the

DOI: 10.1177/1076217513509618. From 1College of William and Mary. Address correspondence to: Joyce VanTassel-Baska, College of William and Mary, 427 Scotland Street, Williamsburg, VA
23185, USA; email: jlvant@wm.edu.
For reprints and permissions queries, please visit SAGEs Web site at http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav.
Copyright 2013 The Author(s)

41
Downloaded from gct.sagepub.com by Allan de Guzman on July 14, 2014

Downloaded from gct.sagepub.com by Allan de Guzman on July 14, 2014

GIFTED CHILD TODAY

vol. 37 no. 1

competency in providing evidence to support ideas,

competency in analyzing difficult text, and competency in
evaluating comparative text selections.
Critical reading and writing behaviors are a central part of
what is being assessed by the new CCSS. For example, Grade 6
students are asked to do the following writing task demand,
based on reading two short passages supplied.
In the Demosthenes biography and the Icarus and
Daedalus myth, the main characters exhibit determination
in pursuit of their goals. Did determination help both
main characters reach their goals or did it lead them to
tragedy? Write an argument for whether you believe
determination helped or hurt the two main characters.
This task demand directs students back to the two texts to
provide details on how determination affected the outcome in
each passage and to identify similarities and differences in the
way it applied. This assessment prototype is used at most grade
levels to assess these higher level skills just as persuasive
writing has been a major part of programs for the gifted to
enhance the same set of skills.
Finally, research evidence suggests that economically
disadvantaged and minority learners perform better on tasks
that emphasize fluid over crystallized intelligence (Mills &
Tissot, 1995), spatial reasoning over verbal and mathematical
(Naglieri, 1999). By employing an assessment approach that
contains a strong spatial component, disparities by
socioeconomic status (SES) levels or ethnic group may be
reduced (Bracken, 2000).

Considerations in Developing PerformanceBased Assessment Tools

Performance-based assessment, as an authentic tool for
judging learning, offers many advantages for enhancing
instruction. These include (a) the use of results as a diagnostic
to determine what curriculum needs to be taught and at what
level, (b) the use of results for flexible grouping within subjects,
and (c) the use of results for instructional emphases or even
reteaching of core concepts. However, constructing good
performance-based assessments requires attention to important
details in the design process. Several considerations important
in developing and implementing more authentic and
performance-based assessment systems with high-ability
learners are addressed below.

differentiation, such as, comparing, classifying, induction,

deduction, constructing support, abstracting, decision making,
investigation, problem solving, and invention (Marzano,
Pickering, & McTighe, 1993). By the same token, expectations
for students performance conveyed, for instance, through
scoring rubrics should reflect the same high standards for
complexity and sophistication to bring out the best products
that gifted learners are capable of generating.

Use Multiple Approaches

To monitor student performance and inform instruction, a
teacher needs to collect student performance data all the way
through a learning module or unit, using formative and
summative assessments. Formative assessments are used to
monitor student progress during instruction, while summative
assessments are given at the end of instruction for the purpose
of certifying mastery or assigning grades (Gronlund, 1998).
While some approaches are more suitable for one type of
assessment (e.g., portfolios may be used for formative, rather
than summative assessment), some approaches can be used for
both. To examine a students performance from various
perspectives and under different conditions, it is desirable for
teachers to employ multiple assessment approaches in oral and
written forms. A combination of approaches generally works to
both the teachers advantage and the students advantage
because different approaches can supplement one another to
provide a more comprehensive picture of a students
performance.

Clarify Purpose
An emphasis on performance-based tasks does not replace
standardized tests when the latter may function effectively. For
instance, although a performance task can allow students to
demonstrate their actual writing ability, students may also
construct their own sentences in such a way as to bypass their
weak areas in sentence structure. If language mechanics are the
purpose for an assessment, then a standardized test can better
cover a large number of grammar and language points in a
relatively short time. It is a more efficient tool for examining
students mastery in key areas. The appropriate assessment
approach should always be based on the purpose of the
assessment. Generally, if content mastery is being assessed, a
paper-and-pencil test with close-ended items may be preferable.
If higher order thinking and problem solving are being
assessed, a more performance-based approach would be
appropriate.

Target High-Level Skills

Given the depth and complexity of gifted learners cognitive
abilities, tests for this population should emphasize high-level
thinking and processing skills. That is, the test should go
beyond simple recollection of knowledge or facts and require
students to operate at higher levels of app1ication, analysis,
synthesis, and evaluation. Task demands for gifted learners can
make use of thinking processes, often identified as central to

Think Through How to Use Assessment Results

Differentiation for gifted learners typically calls for the use of
advanced content, deep processing, and quality products.
Where differentiation is occurring, gifted students tend to get
harder books to read and more challenging projects to complete
than their regular classmates. How do teachers assess their
learning outcomes in such a way that these students feel
43

Downloaded from gct.sagepub.com by Allan de Guzman on July 14, 2014

GIFTED CHILD TODAY

January 2014

properly rewarded for their extra labor? How can we encourage

gifted students to strive for a higher level when they always
compare favorably with their peers in the classroom? And, in
attempting a challenging project, how should teachers
appropriately weigh the emphasis on their efforts and final
results? A disturbing finding that emerged from two district-wide
evaluations of gifted programs was that gifted students are not
evaluated regularly for their learning in programs (VanTasselBaska, 2006). Not only is it difficult to provide challenges for
the gifted, often we do not document how they handled those
challenges to know more about restructuring curriculum the
next time. Teachers must consider how to document results and
use them for future planning and for evidence of student
growth.

Creating Performance-Based Assessment

Task Demands
The process for constructing performance-based measures
can be lengthy, yet shortcuts are possible if we deliberately
apply techniques used in earlier efforts (see VanTassel-Baska,
Johnson, & Avery, 2002). These techniques provide ways to
construct meaningful tasks that align with curriculum standards
and meet technical adequacy considerations.

Selection of Prototypes
To find appropriate prototypes that encompass verbal, math,
and spatial spheres, educators need to review several sources.
The CCSS standards guidebooks, developed by the Standards
Committee for the National Association for Gifted Children,
represent an important source of examples of differentiated
curriculum and assessments in math and language arts (Hughes,
Kettler, Shaughnessy, & VanTassel-Baska, 2013; Johnsen, Riser, &
Assouline, 2014; Johnsen & Sheffield, 2012; VanTassel-Baska,
2013) A new guidebook has also been developed for use in
constructing differentiated curriculum task demands and
performance-based assessments in science (C. Adams, Cotabish,
& Ricci, 2014)

Criteria Used for Task Development

A core set of criteria are essential building blocks in creating
strong performance-based tasks to assess the learning of gifted
students. One criterion is an emphasis on thinking and problem
solving to tap fluid rather than crystallized abilities in a domain.
A second criterion is to develop off-level tasks, ones that would
be challenging to high-ability learners. A third criterion involves
the use of an open-ended format to encourage more creative
responses and ways of thinking. A fourth criterion deals with
the use of manipulatives, a strategy found useful in aiding
students in figuring out hard problems and especially
recommended for use with at-risk students (Ford, 1996;
VanTassel-Baska, 1992). Lastly, the criterion of thinking made
visible should be applied to each task to encourage students to

reflect on their problem-solving approaches and self-correct as

needed.

Off level/advanced. Because the population of interest is highability learners, the criterion of developing off-level tasks
is crucial. The power of the tasks ultimately lay in the ability
to challenge the learner at an authentic level. By using an
advanced and open-ended task, students are not in danger of
bumping up against an artificial ceiling, a common problem
with traditional in-grade achievement tests for these learners.
In many advanced tasks, students have the opportunity to
demonstrate sophistication in their thinking through their
writinga common approach for assessing reasoning ability
(Paul, 1992). Moreover, they are encouraged to be fluent in
expressing and elaborating their ideas.
Open-ended format. Many performance-based tasks should be
open-ended, either because multiple answers are possible or
because different approaches to answers are possible. When
the former case is operant, students are instructed to write as
many solutions as they can find. It prompts students to find
multiple solutions at three levels of complexity. Students are
given a fairly wide framework within which they can show
how well they can see patterns. Multiple responses are judged
equally effective as long as basic parameters of the problem
are honored. Elaboration of response is also encouraged and
rewarded.

Emphasis on articulation of thinking processes. In performance

assessments, students are expected to provide some evidence of
the thinking processes used in obtaining a solution for verbal,
mathematical, and spatial-visual tasks. In some tasks, students
are asked to show in words, pictures, or symbols how they
reached their solutions. In other tasks, articulating the solution
to a nonverbal problem by writing it out is an important part of
the task.

Development of Rubrics and Exemplars

The rubric development process also involves a careful
delineation of a range of responses obtained on a 0 to 4 scale
from high-level response (4) to a low-level response (0). Rubric
scores are used to discriminate among student performances.
Once pilot test data are obtained, a set of exemplars can be
developed for each point total value to aid in understanding
and scoring the tasks. Answer sets for each task can be
constructed and used as a basis for each rubric score.

Using Existing Models for Performance-Based

Assessment
While creating new assessments can be accomplished
by using the steps outlined, many educators may wisely opt to
use or adapt existing performance-based assessments that
already meet technical adequacy and have a history of
successful use.

44
Downloaded from gct.sagepub.com by Allan de Guzman on July 14, 2014

GIFTED CHILD TODAY

vol. 37 no. 1

Pretest Response
Posttest Response
I dont think earthworms like
Title: Are bees attracted to diet cola?
light, because most of them live Hypothesis: I dont think bees are attracted to diets
underground unless it rains or just to regular. For example: coke, sprite,
something and they get washed Dr. Pepper
out of the dirt. I could always do Materials: Bee, diet cola, container
an experiment to make sure,
Description of what I would do: Take one can of
thow. For an experiment, I might diet cola and pour about 1 cup of it into a dish,
taken an earthworm, with some bowl, etc. Then release a bee about a foot away
kind of light, an dirt, and see if it and see if it moves toward the diet cola. If it doesstays out in the light, or trys to you know bees like diet cola, but if it moves away
get away from the light by going from the diet cola, or doesnt respond to it you
under the dirt.
know bees dont like diet cola. When you are done

with your experiment carefully release you bee,
Score: 5
pour out your soda, and put back the way you

found them.

What will you record: If the bees are attracted to

the diet cola or if they are attracted to the none diet
liquids.

Data Table:

Trys: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Reactions:

Score: 12

Figure 1. Sample fifth-grade response.

An Elementary Level Performance-Based

Science Assessment: The Diet Cola Test
The Diet Cola Test was developed by Cain (1990) to assess
students understanding of experiments. It is an open-ended test
that requires students to design an experiment to determine
whether bumble bees are attracted to diet cola. A parallel form
to the Diet Cola Test, the Earthworm Test, asks students to
design an experiment to find out whether earthworms are
attracted to light (C. M. Adams & Callahan, 1995). Both
instruments were adopted for use on a pretest and posttest basis
for their adequate reflection of the unit objectives to develop
student experimental research skills, the similar age range
targeted, and their sufficiently high ceilings (VanTassel-Baska,
Bass, Ries, Poland, & Avery, 1998).
Students responses are scored according to a checklist of
science process skills, with points assigned for addressing each
skill and additional points for skills addressed in greater detail:
plans for safety, stating the problem or question, giving a
hypothesis describing three steps or more, arranging steps in a
sequential order, listing materials needed, plans to repeat
testing, defining terms, plans for observation, plans for
measurement, plans for data collection, plans for interpreting
data, plans to make conclusions based on data, and plans to
control variables.
To illustrate students increased understanding in experimental
design and data collection after their exposure to the units, a
sample response from a fifth grader is presented in Figure 1. The
Figure 1 example demonstrates the growth in student
understanding of experimental design from a raw score of 5 to 12.
He has been able to structure a design in an acceptable format,

describe elements of the process, and set up a rudimentary data

table. Because of their emphasis on advanced level work, the
assessment approaches employed in International Baccalaureate
(IB) and Advanced Placement (AP) programs are illustrative of
assessments commonly used with academically oriented learners.
The IB assessment model measures the performance of
students against the main objectives of the program by using a
combination of external and internal assessment methods in
written and oral modes. External assessments are provided and
scored by the International Baccalaureate Organization (IBO).
Internal assessments, which are also provided by the IBO, are
scored by classroom teachers who are required to send
representative scores of high, low, and average levels to the IBO
for verification of their having correctly used the scoring rubric.
The purpose of this is to ensure that students are assessed fairly
according to international standards. The IB Language A1
externally assessed exam includes the components of
commentary and essay papers on seen and unseen texts and
two written assignments of comparative and imaginative/
creative nature. The external assessments account for 70% of the
overall Language A1 assessment. The internally assessed
component consists of two compulsory oral activities, one
commentary on a teacher-selected reading, and one oral
presentation on a student-selected topic. The oral component
accounts for 30% of the total assessment (IBO, 1999). Scoring
rubrics for the written work typically contain six levels to
differentiate the degrees of none, little, some, adequate, good,
and excellent demonstration of required ability, skills, or
presentation. These assessments demand such abilities as
appreciation, interpretation, comparison, critique, analysis,
evaluation, and creativity.
The AP exam for each of 38 courses provides another
example of a secondary level performance-based approach,
seeking carefully constructed and scored responses that require
depth of knowledge and thought. The exams generally contain
two question types: multiple-choice and free response. The
multiple-choice section emphasizes the breadth of the students
knowledge and understanding of the content. The free-response
section emphasizes the application of these core principles in
greater depth in solving more extended problems, or analyzing
complex issues and texts (e.g., College Board Advanced
Placement Program, 1999a, 1999b, 1999c, 1999d). For example,
a student taking an exam in English Language and Composition
might be asked to analyze the rhetoric of a given passage; a
student taking English Literature and Composition might be
asked to use examples from literature selections he or she has
read to support a generalization about character or theme in the
literature. Students taking a science or statistics exam may be
given a situation and asked to design an experiment to answer
a question of interest. In general, the free-response questions
are designed so that different students are able to draw on the
different experiences and texts they have encountered in their
courses to respond to the question, thus allowing choice for
teacher and student while still maintaining a common course
framework.
45

Downloaded from gct.sagepub.com by Allan de Guzman on July 14, 2014

GIFTED CHILD TODAY

January 2014

The free-response section is scored against carefully

developed guidelines that are drafted by individual item
developers, reviewed and revised collectively by a committee,
and modified based on student responses. Scorers of the
free-response section are trained to apply the guidelines using
exemplary student responses. Sample free-response questions
for all exams, demonstrating the emphasis on higher level
thinking required of students, are available through the College
Board at http://www.collegeboard.com.
Along with demonstrating emphasis on higher level thinking
and problem-solving skills, the AP and IB exams also illustrate
the proper use of different test formats to serve different
purposes of assessment. Moreover, these exams are exemplary
for high-stakes testing in terms of their careful construction with
consideration of the technical concepts of validity, reliability,
and ceiling effect.
Although the resources available to the College Board and
IB for developing their assessments far exceed those available
to the average classroom teacher or district curriculum
developer, the procedures used by these organizations are
useful for developing even small-scale classroom assessments.
The emphases on determining key principles, concepts, and
content for assessment; using multiple formats for question
development; encouraging review by a group of educators and
content experts; and revising careful scoring guidelines based
on the test framework and student response are important
considerations that educators may use as foundations for
adapting their own assessments.

Conclusion
In this age of CCSS, gifted educators need to provide
performance-based assessment protocols in all subject areas that
meet the criteria outlined in this article for advanced, higher
level thinking and problem-solving, and open-ended task
demands that truly challenge gifted learners and provide
demonstrable evidence of their learning at elementary and
secondary levels.

Conflict of Interest
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.

Funding
The author received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References
Adams, C., Cotabish, A., & Ricci, M. K. (2014). Using the next generation
science standards with gifted and advanced learners. Waco, TX:
Prufrock Press
Adams, C. M., & Callahan, C. M. (1995). The reliability and validity of a
performance task for evaluating science process skills. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 39, 14-20.

Bracken, B. (2000, April). An approach for identifying underrepresented

populations for G/T programs: The UNIT test. Presentation at the College
of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA.
Cain, M. F. (1990). The diet cola test. Science Scope, 13(4), 32-34.
College Board Advanced Placement Program. (1999a). 5-years of freeresponse questions 1995-1999: English. New York, NY: College
Entrance Examination Board and Educational Testing Service.
College Board Advanced Placement Program. (1999b). Released exam
1997: AP statistics. New York, NY: College Entrance Examination Board
and Educational Testing Service.
College Board Advanced Placement Program. (1999c). Released exam
1998: AP environmental science. New York, NY: College Entrance
Examination Board and Educational Testing Service.
College Board Advanced Placement Program. (1999d). Released exams:
1998 AP Physics B and Physics C. New York, NY: College Entrance
Examination Board and Educational Testing Service.
Ford, D. Y. (1996). Reversing underachievement among gifted Black
students: Promising programs and practices. New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
Gronlund, N. E. (1998). Assessment of student achievement (6th ed.).
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Hughes, C., Kettler, T., Shaughnessy, E., & VanTassel-Baska, J. (2013).
A guide to Differentiation of the CCSS ELA Standards for Advanced
Learners (Vol. II). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
International Baccalaureate Organization. (1999). International
Baccalaureate Language A1 guide. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
Johnsen, S., Riser, G., & Assouline, S. (2014). A teachers guide to using the
common core state standards with mathematically gifted and advanced
learners. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Johnsen, S., & Sheffield, L. (2012). A guide to mathematics differentiation of
the CCSS for advanced and gifted learners (Vol. I). Waco, TX: Prufrock
Press.
Marzano, R. S., Pickering, D., & McTighe, S. (1993). Assessing student
outcomes: Performance assessment using the dimensions of learning
model. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Mills, C., & Tissot, S. (1995). Identifying academic potential in students
from underrepresented populations: Is using the Ravens Progressive
Matrices a good idea? Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 209-217.
Naglieri, J. A. (1999). The essentials of CAS assessment. New York, NY: Wiley.
Paul, R. (1992). Critical thinking: What every person needs to survive in a
rapidly changing world. Sonoma, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (1992). Planning effective curriculum for gifted
learners. Denver, CO: Love.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (2006). A content analysis of evaluation findings
across 20 gifted programs: A clarion call for enhanced gifted program
development. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 199-215.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (Ed.). (2013). Using the common core state standards
for English language arts with gifted and advanced learners. Waco, TX:
Prufrock Press.
VanTassel-Baska, J., Bass, G., Ries, R., Poland, D., & Avery, L. D. (1998).
A national study of science curriculum effectiveness with high-ability
students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 200-211.
VanTassel-Baska, J., Johnson, D., & Avery, L. D. (2002). Using performance
tasks in the identification of economically disadvantaged and minority
gifted learners: Findings from Project STAR. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46,
110-123.

46
Downloaded from gct.sagepub.com by Allan de Guzman on July 14, 2014

GIFTED CHILD TODAY

vol. 37 no. 1

Bio
Joyce VanTassel-Baska is the Smith professor emerita at The
College of William and Mary in Virginia where she developed a
graduate program and a research and development center in
gifted education. Formerly, she initiated and directed the Center
for Talent Development at Northwestern University. She has also
served as the state director of gifted programs for Illinois, as a

regional director of a gifted service center in the Chicago area,

as coordinator of gifted programs for the Toledo, Ohio public
school system, and as a teacher of gifted high school students in
English and Latin. She has published widely including 29 books
and more than 550 refereed journal articles, book chapters, and
scholarly reports. Her major research interests are on the talent
development process and effective curricular interventions with
the gifted.

47
Downloaded from gct.sagepub.com by Allan de Guzman on July 14, 2014